Nagative Publicity: Companies Assume Different Strategy to Deal with Crisis Management

Now this post, I talk about the negative publicity of compaines assume different strategy to deal with cisis management so, there are many in the business world who believe that publicity including negative publicity is good for company.

So, the publicity is generally acknowledged to be more credible and more influential than company-controlled communications. Negative publicity, in particular, has the potential to damage corporate image. This is due to its high credibility as well as the negativity effect, a tendency for negative information to be weighted more than positive information in the evaluation of people, objects, and ideas. Because the media has a preference for reporting bad news, companies are more likely to receive bad press rather than positive press.

According, The corporate crises often result in negative publicity, threatening the image of the company. The present study investigated the effects of company reputation for social responsibility prior to a crisis event, response to a crisis event, and responsibility for the event on overall consumer regard for the firm. The study is an experimental test of image restoration strategies conceptualized in the literature. Each of the factors was found to exhibit a significant main effect. For the crisis scenario used in the responsibility explained the largest proportion of variance and response explained the least. An unexpected finding was that an inappropriate response by a "bad" company resulted in an increase in regard toward the firm, whereas the same response by a "good" company resulted in a decrease in rregard for the firm.

For some time, the publicity make without to the marketing and the role of the pubilcity so, it make the publicity has the idea and improve for the create of advertising and promote of the producte for the companies as well.